Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

[Daniel Peterson]

Even assuming John Tvedtnes to be a paid apologist, how would that invalidate my assertion that the five DNA-specialist authors I named for "religiously free" were paid precisely $0.00 for their FARMS articles?

As it turns out, though, John Tvedtnes receives precisely the same munificent sum whenever he writes an article for the FARMS Review. Not a penny less. But, of course, if he writes ten articles for the Review, he gets ten times the compensation (plus a 20% bonus).

When FARMS began, it was all-volunteer. After a few years, we realized that we needed a receptionist and office manager who could handle telephone calls, answer correspondence, manage orders, track financial information, take care of travel arrangements, and the like. We who were full-time professors simply could not cope with the volume of work that needed to be done, so we raised some money (via donations) to hire help. That has now grown into a skeleton staff, including editors who supervise the production of journals, books, and a newsletter. John Tvedtnes is on the FARMS staff. He helps us to manage the press of correspondence, to organize and evaluate research proposals and manuscript submissions, to manage some lines of research, etc. The overwhelming percentage of FARMS research and writing, however, continues to be done, as it has always been done, by people who receive no compensation for it. The majority, even, of John Tvedtnes's own writing is done on his own time. And, even after our affiliation with the University, the majority of the FARMS budget continues to be funded by subscriptions, royalties, and donations, not by BYU.

All of which is irrelevant to the actual substance of this thread.

[Beowulf]

I was going to respond to Alienward's response to my post about the existence of God.

But I see he would rather just slam FARMS. (sigh)

Maybe another time.

[alienward]

Because I don't know the source or application of his research funds, but I do know that editorial duties take considerable time and effort.  I am paid by my home institution, but much of my research is conducted using external funds (none of which end up in my paycheck).  Do you know where he gets his money and how it is used?  Further, the quote you provide fails to illuminate in even the smallest degree the extent to which Tvedtnes is paid for his apologetic work.

The Mormon church funds his apologetic projects and pays his salary.

Okay, then why the persistence with this "question"? All of the LDS apologists are paid (I assume that they all have jobs...), but in the vast majority of cases their income has nothing to do with their apologetics work.

Why not just say "In the small minority of cases their income has something to do with their apologetics work."?

The world is full of apologists for all causes, many of whom are paid. Is this a bad thing?

Not at all, that why there

[Ray Agostini]

The world is full of apologists for all causes, many of whom are paid.  Is this a bad thing?  One could argue, given the bombardment of political commercials, that it is.  However, were it not for much of the extensive apologetics work in the sciences, for example, many important ideas would have been terribly delayed or even prevented from reaching fruition. 

So, now that we know that you are adamantly apathetic about paid apologists, I would ask again -- What's the big deal?

That's the question I've been asking. The Tanners are what I would call paid "professional anti-Mormons", or apologists for their cause. Or "entrepreneurial apologists", they have made a living from it.

I think we should just accept that people are paid, even if indirectly, to apologise for their particular causes, no matter how large or small. The seeker will know that he/she must read/examine both sides to get a balanced picture.

[alienward]

They say it's too sophisticated for that. That's why even Professor David Wright says the BoM is "inspired". But those who do not have an understanding of the sophisticated nature of the content of the BoM might ignorantly call it "plagiarism". Plagiarism is not always easy to detect. If Joseph Smith was doing this surreptitiously he did a lousy job.

He did a lousy job resulting in a clumsy plagiarized fiction about non-existing American civilizations.

It was a seerstone. The powers of which we have not fully understood, but you might find some enlightenment in reading Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview for quite a startling review of how this has been used throughout history, and quite respectably.

Quinn's book is too long, just give me the reference to the article in Scientific American.

One man's treasure is another's trash. Jesus did recommend that pearls not be cast before swine.

One man

[Daniel Peterson]

Ray, for what it's worth I really don't believe that interaction with alienward is productive. I've never seen anything useful come of it, but I've seen more than enough sneering, sullenness, and grimly humorless mockery.

[YH8]

alienward seems angry.

[Daniel Peterson]

alienward seems angry.

alienward always seems angry.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray, for what it's worth I really don't believe that interaction with alienward is productive.  I've never seen anything useful come of it, but I've seen more than enough sneering, sullenness, and grimly humorless mockery.

Maybe alienward would like to explain why he's so angry. Because that's clearly what I see, not anything rational that I can make out. Seems he doesn't want the facts to get in the way of a good grudge.

Anyway, one last try, as my time is limited too:

He did a lousy job resulting in a clumsy plagiarized fiction about non-existing American civilizations.

And I guess alienward knows that every civilisation that ever existed in ancient America has been uncovered. There are no more to be discovered. We can now pack up and go home and forget about any more exploration.

Quinn's book is too long, just give me the reference to the article in Scientific American.

Maybe that's your problem. A little learning can be a dangerous thing. Despite his idiosyncracies and some strange personal interpretations about homosexuality in history, particularly Mormon history, Quinn is an example of someone who can see that Joseph Smith was no charlatan and the Book of Mormon is no dud. The example of reputable scholars, both non-Mormon and Mormon, who take it seriously just keeps piling up. It's the Jerry Springer versions which debunk it.

Incidentally, Scientfic American did in fact run a special edition on ancient America in 1999, did you read it? I'll give you the conclusion, basically, which you can check for yourself: We may be in for some great surprises about the beginnings of ancient America and need to keep an open mind.

Go check it yourself. But it could come as a rude shock to your base assumptions. I bought and read that Special Edition from cover to cover.

You

[Pahoran]

Alienward,

you wrote:

One man

[alienward]

And I guess alienward knows that every civilisation that ever existed in ancient America has been uncovered. There are no more to be discovered. We can now pack up and go home and forget about any more exploration.

The Mormon church packed up and went home a long time ago.

Maybe that's your problem. A little learning can be a dangerous thing. Despite his idiosyncracies and some strange personal interpretations about homosexuality in history, particularly Mormon history, Quinn is an example of someone who can see that Joseph Smith was no charlatan and the Book of Mormon is no dud. The example of reputable scholars, both non-Mormon and Mormon, who take it seriously just keeps piling up. It's the Jerry Springer versions which debunk it.

The book was debunked in the 1830s and is still just as debunked today.

Incidentally, Scientfic American did in fact run a special edition on ancient America in 1999, did you read it? I'll give you the conclusion, basically, which you can check for yourself: We may be in for some great surprises about the beginnings of ancient America and need to keep an open mind.

So, you don't have the article about the science of the seerstone.

Go check it yourself. But it could come as a rude shock to your base assumptions. I bought and read that Special Edition from cover to cover.

The BoM places itself in the Old World.

I do my own thinking thank you.

Thank you also. But I don't see how you can acknowledge the KJV plagairism and still think the BoM was a literal translation.

[Devin]

I was going to respond to Alienward's response to my post about the existence of God.

But I see he would rather just slam FARMS. (sigh)

Maybe another time.

I was going to say myself, that this thread took a U turn.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was going to say myself, that this thread took a U turn.

It's just yet another remake of Attack of the Thread Destroyer.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us." (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

[John Russell]

Maybe the question should be turned around, in Popperian fashion -- Has science disproven the existence of God? I think that science has demonstated that things happen in patterns (whether a result of emergent properties or due to simple linearity) and that there are natural explanations for many events. The problem is that all of this is occurring within a universal arena and against a cosmological background that may be the result of a Divine Creator, so it becomes impossible to separate the events from the Being who set those events in motion, in my opinion. Is it possible to prove that there is no God?

[Daniel Peterson]

There are interesting questions, even apart from this or that specific scientific question. Why is there something, rather than nothing at all? Why, even if human brains and crystals and fir trees and carbon and blue whales and Hamlet have unfolded out of the Big Bang, did they do so? Why did apparent laws of order and organization emerge from that explosion? And if it is said that they were written into the initial singularity, why should that have been so? What is the nature of consciousness? Is it really reducible to neurons and synapses? How do brains have subjective experiences? And so forth.

It seems absurd to suggest that science has disproved the idea of God. If God is rejected, the rejection needs to be made on the basis of science plus something else.

[TrespassersW]

Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?

Along these lines, I recently read a physics book that asked the question about entropy. If the entropy level of the universe must constantly be increasing, and the universe has existed for billions of years, and the current level of entropy in the universe is pretty low, then the entropy level of the universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been almost zero. In other words, a near perfect state of organization.

The author's answer: "We have no explanation for this."

[alienward]

Maybe the question should be turned around, in Popperian fashion -- Has science disproven the existence of God? 

We are talking about the Heavenly Father God of Mormonism, and not the gods of the rest of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and the other world religions and god beliefs, right? No, but it has disproved many of Mormonism

[alienward]

There are interesting questions, even apart from this or that specific scientific question.  Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?  Why, even if human brains and crystals and fir trees and carbon and blue whales and Hamlet have unfolded out of the Big Bang, did they do so?  Why did apparent laws of order and organization emerge from that explosion?  And if it is said that they were written into the initial singularity, why should that have been so?  What is the nature of consciousness?  Is it really reducible to neurons and synapses?  How do brains have subjective experiences?  And so forth.

I hope you don

[Devin]

There are interesting questions, even apart from this or that specific scientific question. Why is there something, rather than nothing at all? Why, even if human brains and crystals and fir trees and carbon and blue whales and Hamlet have unfolded out of the Big Bang, did they do so? Why did apparent laws of order and organization emerge from that explosion? And if it is said that they were written into the initial singularity, why should that have been so? What is the nature of consciousness? Is it really reducible to neurons and synapses? How do brains have subjective experiences? And so forth.

It seems absurd to suggest that science has disproved the idea of God. If God is rejected, the rejection needs to be made on the basis of science plus something else.

DP your way to smart of a guy for me but I do agree with your last point. Scientists always say that there is no proof of god, all the while trying to find proof that there is no god, and after all this time theres still no proof that god doesn't exist.

[Elihu]

Based upon the latter day posts it seems like the topic has gone off track

This one did catch my eye, and invoked some thoughts, which I hope are valid and not just spins of taking the comment out of context.

[The Traveler]

I did not reply because the question is not complete. Science is by defination imperical and the understanding of G-d is spiritual. Therefore a prof (emperical) would disprove G-d (that can only be understood spiritually).

However, there is much of G-d that is logical therefore there is logical evidence. Like the traces of particles in buble chambers there is evidence that electrons exist but in reality my friends; electrons have not been proven to exist. There is evidence that they exist and we make theories to explain what we think of electrons, but the emperical prof and identification is lacking. But then one does not have to prove of the existance of electrons to be able to enjoy the wonder and benifit of electronics.

The Traveler.

[religiously free]

"religiously free," let's just take a single issue before you depart several days ago on your two-week vacation.

You made a demonstrably false statement about the FARMS DNA authors.  I demonstrated it false.  Doing so was not ad hominem.

You apparently need, among many other things, to read up on the nature and definition of logical fallacies.

I did not say the example you give above was an ad hominem. In your responses to me you consistently have shifted focus away from issues ..and onto me. It is a tactic in argumentation which I believe is commonly referred to as ad hominem. The person ends up spending their time defending themselves rather than discussing the issues. Whether or not ad hominem is the correct term/label is not important. The fact that it is a tactic employed particularly by those who represent a weak position is what is important. And it is a tactic you employ. To my recollection after I listed, ( I believe )4 problems with authenticity of BOM you didn't offer any refutation but instead make snide or sarcastic remarks relating to me, in particular with regards to my lack of knowledge regarding FARMS, BOM, various scientists you listed, to name a few. I have acknowledged that you should be the more knowledgable one in this discussion. I'm willing to listen to your refutations...but so far I haven't read any. All I keep seeing is your snide remarks directed at me.

Now regarding my comments re the FARMS authors I had to go back and find what I had said. I had replied previously to your comment

D.P: And, for someone of your ability, hearing is plainly enough. No need to have first-hand knowledge. Is your expertise in genetics comparable to your familiarity with quantum theory?

And I wrote I think Spencer Well's knowledge of genetics is excellent ..I tend to defer to unbiased experts with high credibility. FARMS lacks the unbiased credibilty, they not experts in genetics and they are paid to to be apologists for mormonism. I don't think I need say more.

FARMS does lack unbiased credibility. That's not to say that everything they say will be wrong or should be ignored but the objective investigator must take into account that those working on behalf of FARMS (paid or volunteer) have a particular bias. The purpose of FARMS is to seek only evidence, argumentation, opinions which supports the mormon organization.

You have mentioned in a previous post that some of the FARMS people have high credentials in genetics. Well, if they disagree with the Out of Africa theory explained by Spencer Well's I'd have a problem with whatever they said and would have to do further investigation on what their credentials are and their position. However I believe you said in a post they do not disagree with the Out of Africa theory. So their expertise in genetics is a moot point then...and I shouldn't have bothered mentioning it. Sure I don't know FARMS all that well, i.e. who is involved, what exactly are their backgrounds, whether they are paid, who funds them, whether they need funding. I do not claim to be an expert on FARMS. The main point I was making was that FARMS lacks unbiased credibilty. I apologize if I was wrong and they are experts in genetics. I apologize for erroneously assuming they are paid rather than volunteers. However what it boils down to is due to FARMS lack of independent objectivity, greater care in evaluation must be taken in considering whatever FARMS issues to the public in support of the mormon organization.

As an aside Daniel if you were truly interested in communication you would have explained why the Out of Africa theory does not refute historical claims of mormonism re N.A. indians. BTW I have read a little of what you've written. I came across an article you wrote regarding evidence for BOM. I believe your main evidence given was that an uneducated FARM boy wouldn't likely have been able to write the BOM. For your article to have merit it needed to refute the evidence of Spaulding being the main writer. And I don't believe you mentioned anything about mistranslations of a particular english version of the bible being carried forward to the BOM. So all in all your article was not particularly convincing.

BTW, I'm not trying to start a discussion up again with you..I'm simply addressing a few points you brought up which I didn't have time to respond to previously.

[Daniel Peterson]

In your responses to me you consistently have shifted focus away from issues ..and onto me. It is a tactic in argumentation which I believe is commonly referred to as ad hominem.  The person ends up spending their time defending themselves rather than discussing the issues.  Whether or not ad hominem is the correct term/label is not important.  The fact that it is a tactic employed particularly by those who represent a weak position  is what is important.  And it is a tactic you employ. 

Please supply for discussion some specific examples of this alleged practice of mine. It is true that I've commented that you plainly don't know enough about contemporary science -- e.g., you admit to knowing "nothing" about quantum physics, which is certainly one of the two most important developments in physics during the past century -- to be issuing grand statements about the relationship of contemporary science to religion. The truth of my comment seems obvious beyond dispute. But it wasn't offered as an argument. It was merely an observation made when argument proved pointless because of your lack of relevant knowledge.

To my recollection after I listed, ( I believe )4 problems with authenticity of BOM you didn't offer any refutation but instead make snide or sarcastic remarks relating to me, in particular with regards to my lack of knowledge regarding FARMS, BOM, various scientists you listed, to name a few.    I have acknowledged that you should be the more knowledgable one in this discussion.  I'm willing to listen to your refutations...but so far I haven't read any. All I keep seeing is your snide remarks directed at me.

Here's what you had written:

I tend to defer to unbiased experts with high credibility. FARMS lacks the unbiased credibilty, they not experts in genetics and they are paid to to be apologists for mormonism. I don't think I need say more.

In response, I pointed out that the people who wrote on genetics for FARMS are experts in genetics and that they are not paid to be apologists for Mormonism.

You say you haven't read any refutation of your claim? There are two (2) in the previous sentence alone. Two direct contradictions. Let me identify them more clearly so that there can be no mistake:

Religiously Free's Claim #1: The FARMS authors on DNA are "not experts in genetics."

The Truth: The FARMS authors on DNA are "experts in genetics."

Religiously Free's Claim #2: The FARMS authors on DNA "are paid to to be apologists for mormonism."

The Truth: The FARMS authors on DNA are not "paid to to be apologists for mormonism."

FARMS does lack unbiased credibility.

Show me a researcher who has completely unbiased credibility, and I'll quote to you from his obituary. Of course those affiliated with FARMS have a bias. Just as do those who argue against those affiliated with FARMS. It's one thing to take a bias into account, and quite another to suggest dismissing someone without a hearing on account of supposed bias -- which is effectively what you have done and what you have been suggesting.

As an aside Daniel if you were truly interested in communication you would have explained why the Out of Africa theory does not refute historical claims of mormonism re N.A. indians.

First of all, that isn't even remotely the topic of this thread.

Secondly, you'll have to explain what "the Out of Africa theory" has to do with the story of Lehi and Sariah. I suspect that I know where you think you're going with this, but you need to state it. (If it's what I think it is, I don't see the two topics as having anything whatever in common.)

BTW I have read a little of what you've written.  I came across an article you wrote regarding evidence for BOM.  I believe your main evidence given was that an uneducated FARM boy wouldn't likely have been able to write the BOM.

That's not my evidence. That's one of my conclusions.

For your article to have merit it needed to refute the evidence of Spaulding being the main writer.

An article doesn't have to, and cannot, address every possible topic. I'm not among those who take the Spalding Theory very seriously. There are good treatments of it already in Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith -- though she rejected Joseph's prophetic claims, she was also no fan of the Spalding explanation for them -- and in Lester Bush's famous Dialogue article on the topic. (Of course, I'm sure that you've already read those.) And, obviously, one ought to actually read through Spalding's Manuscript Found, which was conveniently published by the Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University some years ago.

And I don't believe you mentioned anything about mistranslations of a particular english version of the bible being carried forward to the BOM.  So all in all your article was not particularly convincing.

Those alleged mistranslations have been addressed, as you are aware, in a number of other places -- including, in one article, by me. I don't feel the need to address the issue in every single thing that I write.

BTW, I'm not trying to start a discussion up again with you.

Thank you.

[religiously free]

[John Russell]

RF,

Could you please expound on specifically how you perceive the Out of Africa Theory conflicting with the Book of Mormon. I have been trying to follow you discussion, and can't seem to ken your specific concerns. I am no expert on this particular theory, but I am at a loss to understand how the emergence of modern man from Africa between 100,000 and 2 million years ago impacts on the movement of the Jaredites or Lehites to the Americas only a few thousand years ago. Where do you see the conflicts?